Bradley for Rowand?

[Old Style]

Just saw this floating out there on the Trib's site.

[Sammy Sofa]

OK, NOW the horror begins.

[The Logan]

Barf

[MSG T]

](*,)

 

I'm 100% sure there are plenty of people out there that think that would be fantastic. I'm also 100% positive that I don't want Miles on the team, so why would Rowand be a good idea.

[Butterscup1679666578]

this is going to be the worst offseason

[UMFan83]

Dude he's gritty. He flies into the wall a lot. Plus it would piss off those south side scums.

 

Swap a mostly good baseball player who is under appreciated by the fans for a mediocre baseball player who is way over appreciated by the fans. I could totally see the Cubs doing this figuring if they were paying someone a ton of money, it might as well be someone who will get cheered by the fans, not necessarily the best player they can get for their money.

[NewUserName]

Rowand is unpopular with Giant fans.

[UMFan83]

Rowand is unpopular with Giant fans.

 

Oh....most likely because of his contract/production, that makes sense. When he was making less money and was a grinder flying all over CF in Philly and the South Side he was mostly adored.

[inari]

If they're talking about this there's no way it doesn't happen. This would make the fanbase need a new pair of pants real quick. If they got DeRosa at second and Rowand in right, we'd have the most loved 83 win team in history.

[Backtobanks]

Let me start by saying that I agree Rowand is paid way too much for his production, but that certainly is true of Bradley too. If you look at the numbers, Bradley and Rowand are pretty similar:

Rowand (2009) .264/.320/.428/.748 Career .281/.340/.450/.790

Bradley (2009) .257/.378/.397/.775 Career .277/.371/.450/.821

 

Assuming Bradley will be traded for another bad contract, this might not be to bad of a deal. The primary reasons are: 1. Money (or other considerations) would be coming to the Cubs instead of going to another team. 2. Ridding the team of a clubhouse cancer/media disaster for a well liked player with approximately the same production.

 

The contracts:

Bradley 2010- $9 million, 2011- $12 million

Rowand 2010- $12 million, 2011- $12 million, 2012- $12 million

 

I would take a deal of Bradley for Rowand (plus $6 million or more).

[RedFlash]

I saw this proposal on a Giants MB and brought it over here. While I did mentioned, I do not want the Aaron Miles/Ryan Theriot of he OF on this team. This team doesn't need anymore grit/no production players on this team.

[UMFan83]

Let me start by saying that I agree Rowand is paid way too much for his production, but that certainly is true of Bradley too. If you look at the numbers, Bradley and Rowand are pretty similar:

Rowand (2009) .264/.320/.428/.748 Career .281/.340/.450/.790

Bradley (2009) .257/.378/.397/.775 Career .277/.371/.450/.821

 

Assuming Bradley will be traded for another bad contract, this might not be to bad of a deal. The primary reasons are: 1. Money (or other considerations) would be coming to the Cubs instead of going to another team. 2. Ridding the team of a clubhouse cancer/media disaster for a well liked player with approximately the same production.

 

The contracts:

Bradley 2010- $9 million, 2011- $12 million

Rowand 2010- $12 million, 2011- $12 million, 2012- $12 million

 

I would take a deal of Bradley for Rowand (plus $6 million or more).

 

The difference is, if you trade for Rowand straight up you are basically getting Rowand for 3 years $36 million because he's signed for the next 3 seasons at 12 mil per. Or you can keep Bradley for 2 years 21 million (9 mil next year, 12 million in year 3). So you are taking on $15 million dollars to get a player that puts up .750 OPS's every year. And while Bradley has an upside where he might put up a .900 OPS, or at the very least put up a .380-.400 OBP (and don't forget, OBP is under represented in OPS), you're pretty much getting a .320 OBP and .750 OPS from Rowand. I know he put up a .900 OPS season in Philly, but he's not doing that in SF, but he'd maybe have a slight bump at Wrigley (maybe .780 OPS).

 

So, as much as we want to get rid of Bradley, this isn't the right way to go. I'm personally not willing to pay $15 million to take on a more likable, slightly worse version of 2009 Bradley, with little upside and for an extra season.

[17 Seconds]

horrible

[Backtobanks]

Let me start by saying that I agree Rowand is paid way too much for his production, but that certainly is true of Bradley too. If you look at the numbers, Bradley and Rowand are pretty similar:

Rowand (2009) .264/.320/.428/.748 Career .281/.340/.450/.790

Bradley (2009) .257/.378/.397/.775 Career .277/.371/.450/.821

 

Assuming Bradley will be traded for another bad contract, this might not be to bad of a deal. The primary reasons are: 1. Money (or other considerations) would be coming to the Cubs instead of going to another team. 2. Ridding the team of a clubhouse cancer/media disaster for a well liked player with approximately the same production.

 

The contracts:

Bradley 2010- $9 million, 2011- $12 million

Rowand 2010- $12 million, 2011- $12 million, 2012- $12 million

 

I would take a deal of Bradley for Rowand (plus $6 million or more).

 

The difference is, if you trade for Rowand straight up you are basically getting Rowand for 3 years $36 million because he's signed for the next 3 seasons at 12 mil per. Or you can keep Bradley for 2 years 21 million (9 mil next year, 12 million in year 3). So you are taking on $15 million dollars to get a player that puts up .750 OPS's every year. And while Bradley has an upside where he might put up a .900 OPS, or at the very least put up a .380-.400 OBP (and don't forget, OBP is under represented in OPS), you're pretty much getting a .320 OBP and .750 OPS from Rowand. I know he put up a .900 OPS season in Philly, but he's not doing that in SF, but he'd maybe have a slight bump at Wrigley (maybe .780 OPS).

 

So, as much as we want to get rid of Bradley, this isn't the right way to go. I'm personally not willing to pay $15 million to take on a more likable, slightly worse version of 2009 Bradley, with little upside and for an extra season.

 

Not an option from everything I'm reading.

 

Using my scenario it wouldn't be $15 million because I included $6million or more coming to the Cubs.

 

As we all know the only options for this mess are:

1. Keep Bradley (not going to happen). :pig:

2. Trade Bradley for next to nothing and pay him $15-$18 million to play for another team.

3. Trade him for another bad contract player who might play a role on the team.

 

Personally, I find option #2 the worst by far and since #1 is going to happen, that leaves #3 as the one I'd prefer. Looking at the bad contracts out there (GMJR, Byrnes, Perez, Pierre, Burrell, Rowand, etc.), I would pick Rowand. If Hendry can pull off some miracle and trade him and most of his contract for a prospect or two great, but I think all of this "interest" by other GMs is based on the assumption that they won't have to give up much and Hendry will pay a big chunk of his contract.

[RedFlash]

As we all know the only options for this mess are:

1. Keep Bradley (not going to happen). :pig:

2. Trade Bradley for next to nothing and pay him $15-$18 million to play for another team.

3. Trade him for another bad contract player who might play a role on the team.

 

Personally, I find option #2 the worst by far and since #1 is going to happen, that leaves #3 as the one I'd prefer. Looking at the bad contracts out there (GMJR, Byrnes, Perez, Pierre, Burrell, Rowand, etc.), I would pick Rowand. If Hendry can pull off some miracle and trade him and most of his contract for a prospect or two great, but I think all of this "interest" by other GMs is based on the assumption that they won't have to give up much and Hendry will pay a big chunk of his contract.

 

If the Cubs feel Bradley for Rowand is the best they can do, then they better be asking for a really good prospect with Rowand. Rowands' contract is guarantee longer then Bradley's. (Bradley's 2011 season is only guarantee through certainincentives). If we have to trade the superior player with the shorter deal, then I want really solid prospect with Rowand.

[Little Slide Rooter]

The one upside of Rowand would be that it would piss off White Sox fans to the degree that DeRosa to the Cardinals pissed us off, especially if Rowands even slightly productive.

[Little Slide Rooter]

As we all know the only options for this mess are:

1. Keep Bradley (not going to happen). :pig:

2. Trade Bradley for next to nothing and pay him $15-$18 million to play for another team.

3. Trade him for another bad contract player who might play a role on the team.

 

Personally, I find option #2 the worst by far and since #1 is going to happen, that leaves #3 as the one I'd prefer. Looking at the bad contracts out there (GMJR, Byrnes, Perez, Pierre, Burrell, Rowand, etc.), I would pick Rowand. If Hendry can pull off some miracle and trade him and most of his contract for a prospect or two great, but I think all of this "interest" by other GMs is based on the assumption that they won't have to give up much and Hendry will pay a big chunk of his contract.

 

If the Cubs feel Bradley for Rowand is the best they can do, then they better be asking for a really good prospect with Rowand. Rowands' contract is guarantee longer then Bradley's. (Bradley's 2011 season is only guarantee through certainincentives). If we have to trade the superior player with the shorter deal, then I want really solid prospect with Rowand.

 

We'd be lucky if we didnt end up giving them a really good prospect. Rowand may not be the ideal option, but every GM knows that Hendrys desperate to move Bradley and will milk it for all they can.

[Tim M]

I saw this proposal on a Giants MB and brought it over here. While I did mentioned, I do not want the Aaron Miles/Ryan Theriot of he OF on this team. This team doesn't need anymore grit/no production players on this team.

 

I know he isn't a hall of famer but Theriot really should never be mentioned in the same sentence as Aaron Miles.

[Sammy Sofa]

The one upside of Rowand would be that it would piss off White Sox fans to the degree that DeRosa to the Cardinals pissed us off, especially if Rowands even slightly productive.

 

That's not an upside at all.

[Backtobanks]

Quote from Redflash:"If the Cubs feel Bradley for Rowand is the best they can do, then they better be asking for a really good prospect with Rowand. Rowands' contract is guarantee longer then Bradley's. (Bradley's 2011 season is only guarantee through certainincentives). If we have to trade the superior player with the shorter deal, then I want really solid prospect with Rowand"

 

From what i've seen Bradley's contract is now guaranteed for 2011. The stipulations were 75 days on the DL in 2009 or on the DL at the end of 2009 and still DLed at beginning of 2010 with the same ailment. Since neither of these happened, it's guaranteed.

[RedFlash]

Quote from Redflash:"If the Cubs feel Bradley for Rowand is the best they can do, then they better be asking for a really good prospect with Rowand. Rowands' contract is guarantee longer then Bradley's. (Bradley's 2011 season is only guarantee through certainincentives). If we have to trade the superior player with the shorter deal, then I want really solid prospect with Rowand"

 

From what i've seen Bradley's contract is now guaranteed for 2011. The stipulations were 75 days on the DL in 2009 or on the DL at the end of 2009 and still DLed at beginning of 2010 with the same ailment. Since neither of these happened, it's guaranteed.

 

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/chicago-cubs_112114177768677294.html

 

that's not what this site says. Now, this site could be wrong, I grant you, but unless there is another site that is better I'm going by what this site says.

[CubColtPacer]

Quote from Redflash:"If the Cubs feel Bradley for Rowand is the best they can do, then they better be asking for a really good prospect with Rowand. Rowands' contract is guarantee longer then Bradley's. (Bradley's 2011 season is only guarantee through certainincentives). If we have to trade the superior player with the shorter deal, then I want really solid prospect with Rowand"

 

From what i've seen Bradley's contract is now guaranteed for 2011. The stipulations were 75 days on the DL in 2009 or on the DL at the end of 2009 and still DLed at beginning of 2010 with the same ailment. Since neither of these happened, it's guaranteed.

 

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/chicago-cubs_112114177768677294.html

 

that's not what this site says. Now, this site could be wrong, I grant you, but unless there is another site that is better I'm going by what this site says.

 

Actually, that's exactly what that site says. It says it is only a club option if one of those two things happened. Since neither of those two happened, it's guaranteed.

 

That other incentive part was only a way for Bradley to guarantee it again if it became a club option in the first place. Since it didn't become a club option, that part is irrelevant.

[haubrich91]

Rowand and Bumgardner for Bradley.

 

Boom.

[RedFlash]

That other incentive part was only a way for Bradley to guarantee it again if it became a club option in the first place. Since it didn't become a club option, that part is irrelevant.

 

Ok, but doesn't change the fact that if we are to take the inferior player (although he grit-o-meter has to be through the roof) with the worse contract, I would demand a solid prospect in return if I was Hendry. I wouldn't demand somebody like Bumgardner, but someone like Joaquin or Sosa would suffice.

[Backtobanks]

That other incentive part was only a way for Bradley to guarantee it again if it became a club option in the first place. Since it didn't become a club option, that part is irrelevant.

 

Ok, but doesn't change the fact that if we are to take the inferior player (although he grit-o-meter has to be through the roof) with the worse contract, I would demand a solid prospect in return if I was Hendry. I wouldn't demand somebody like Bumgardner, but someone like Joaquin or Sosa would suffice.

 

I tried to point out that Rowand isn't necessarily an inferior player compared to Bradley. He does have a worse contract, which is why I included the money coming back to the Cubs. Another option to receiving money would be to get a decent prospect in return.